from the winner-and-still-champion dept

A few weeks ago we took a look at the latest filings in the long-running Viacom/YouTube dispute and were somewhat stunned at the ridiculous arguments made by Viacom, suggesting that the burden of proof was on YouTube to prove it did not know the videos on its site infringed on Viacom's copyrights. The idea that copyright law works this way, in which the burden of proof is on the service provider to show a lack of knowledge of infringement, is crazy. Thankfully, the court agreed.

In a ruling released today, the court gave a total victory to Google/YouTube, granting it summary judgment, saying that YouTube was protected from claims of infringement via the DMCA's safe harbors, and mocking Viacom's legal theories at the same time. Might as well jump right in with some quotes, including the money quote that Viacom's legal theory is "extravagant." Elsewhere the judge calls it "ingenious."

Viacom's argument that the volume of material and "the absence of record evidence that would allow a jury to decide which clips-in-suit were specifically known to senior YouTube executives" (Viacom Opp. pp. 9-10) combine to deprive YouTube of the statutory safe harbor, is extravagant. If, as plaintiffs assert, neither side can determine the presence or absence of specific infringements because of the volume of material, that merely demonstrates the wisdom of the legislative requirement that it be the owner of the copyright, or his agent, who identifies the infringement by giving the service provider notice. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A). The system is entirely workable: in 2007 Viacom itself gave such notice to YouTube of infringements by some 100,000 videos, which were taken down by YouTube by the next business day. See 718 F. Supp. 2d 514 at 524.

Thus, the burden of showing that YouTube knew or was aware of the specific infringements of the works in suit cannot be shifted to YouTube to disprove. Congress has determined that the burden of identifying what must be taken down is to be on the copyright owner, a determination which has proven practicable in practice.

This was the crux of Viacom's argument. That because they could show a lot of infringement, and here and there point to some evidence that some people at YouTube might have known of general infringement, then the burden should be on YouTube. But the court clearly calls them on this, noting that's not what the law says, nor does it make sense. Instead, under the law, the burden is on Viacom and that makes sense.

From there, the court cut through the claim of "willful blindness" that Viacom (and some of the folks in our comments) were so fond of. The court's basic response is "huh?" Basically it points out that Viacom's argument makes no sense. It points out that the 2nd Circuit appeals court made it clear that red flag knowledge had to be about specific infringements and Viacom keeps talking about general knowledge. This is, of course, what plenty of us pointed at the time and the court clearly sees through Viacom's wacky argument.

Here, the examples proffered by plaintiffs (to which they claim YouTube was willfully blind) give at most information that infringements were occurring with particular works, and occasional indications of promising areas to locate and remove them. The specific locations of infringements are not supplied: at most, an area of search is identified, and YouTube is left to find the infringing clip. As stated in UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, No. 10-55732, 2013 WL 1092793, at *12 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) ("UMG III"),

Although the parties agree, in retrospect, that at times there was infringing material available on Veoh's services, the DMCA recognizes that service providers who do not locate and remove infringing materials they do not specifically know of should not suffer the loss of safe harbor protection.

The Karim memorandum states that infringing clips of some well-known shows "can still be found," but does not identify the specific clips he saw or where he found them. The Wilkens declaration submitted by plaintiffs asserts that there were over 450 such clips on YouTube at the time, and presumably some of them contained the infringing matter seen by Mr. Karim. To find them would require YouTube to locate and review over 450 clips. The DMCA excuses YouTube from doing that search. Under § 512(m), nothing in the applicable section of the DMCA shall be construed to require YouTube's "affirmatively seeking the facts indicating infringing activity."

Mr. Karim's memorandum does not tie his observations to any specific clips. Application of the principle of willful blindness to his memorandum thus does not produce knowledge or awareness of infringement of specific clips-in-suit, out of the 450 available candidates. Nor does any other example tendered by plaintiffs.

It goes on to reject Viacom's theory that YouTube had the "right and ability to control" infringement on YouTube, by pointing out that its failure to monitor is completely allowed under the DMCA, contrary to Viacom's desire to pretend otherwise:

YouTube's decision to restrict its monitoring efforts to certain groups of infringing clips, like its decisions "to restrict access to its proprietary search mechanisms," do not exclude it from the safe harbor, regardless of their motivation.

Further, it points out that the rest of Viacom's arguments just show "the normal functioning of any service provider, and shows neither participation in, nor coercion of, user infringement activity." Basically, Viacom's bizarre attempt at making all service providers liable across the board has failed.

Finally, the court quickly dismisses Viacom's claim that because YouTube did deals to make its videos accessible via mobile phones, that syndication caused YouTube to lose its safe harbor protections. The court notes that this was just about making the videos accessible, not about YouTube selecting videos, but still letting users pick the videos they want to watch, but via their mobile phones. It notes that contrary to losing the safe harbor provisions, this is actually a reason for why the safe harbors are good, because it "serves the purpose" of the DMCA in "providing access to material stored at the direction of users."

Basically, Viacom has wasted an incredible amount of money on a massive lawsuit based on a very, very shaky premise that the court didn't buy the first time around, or the second time around. Of course, now we fully expect Viacom to throw more good money after bad, and keep trying to convince a court that its entirely unique interpretation of the DMCA makes sense.

Re:

Re: Re:

What are you talking about? I know how very very important it is to Mike that no copyright owner ever has his rights vindicated in a court of law. At the same time, I'm fully aware of the fact that Mike is totally on the fence and he just can't decide which side of the copyright wars he's on. It's so obvious from all of his writings. Article after article defending the copyright owner, and article after article defending the pirate. Of course Mike's on the fence, of course he can't decide what he believes. What you talking about? It's so obvious. Don't you read this blog?

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Your comments have become more desperate, more unhinged, and makes more use of ad-hom the longer you've been around.

Mike won't state a position on if there should or should not be copywrite, that does not mean he is against copywrite.

And the question is... even if he IS against copywrite, why does that matter? So that you can say "I TOLD YOU SO!"? Lots of people are against copywrite, lots are against copywrite overreach, public support for copywrite can at best be called "low".

Your constant catcalls have just reeked of desperation for a reaction or provocation from Mike, so I suggest to you, seek help.

Your inability to admit he's right on ANY issue, even when it's a simple quotation of facts is just worrying.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Clearly, clearly, clearly Mike is on the fence. He just can't decide. He just can't state an opinion either way. Obviously he's just so very confused about what he really believes. He just can't form an opinion. What's so hard to believe about that?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

He has an opinion? I thought that he was just so oh so totally and completely incapable of forming any opinion whatsoever. He's just on the fence and he just can't decide what he thinks about copyright. What's so hard to believe about that? Haven't you read the thousands of blog post where he rags on copyright and he never ever says anything positive about it? That shows that he's on the fence. What's wrong with you? Opinion. Ha. There's no such thing as an opinion from Mike. He's just not capable of that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I care that he's deliberately lying and pretending like he hasn't picked a side and he's completely unable to form any opinions whatsoever on whether or not we should have any copyright at all. That bothers me, because it's really really really obviously a complete and total lie.

What's quite telling, of course, is that you can't discuss how your lovely friends at Viacom just got their asses handed to them. So, I guess, mission accomplished, huh? Anything to distract people from the actual issue at hand.

You just didn't like his answer. He clearly stated what his opinion was. He did not say he didn't pick a side (he clearly thinks that copyright law is broken.)

That's not an answer. That's a cop-out. I know that he doesn't "know" what the proper solution is. Nobody does. But we all have opinions, Mike more so than most.

I want his opinion, given what he knows and thinks, yes or no, should artists and authors have ANY exclusive rights whatsoever. He obviously can form an opinion about this. He just spouts weasel words and pretends like he can't. He can. He tells us his opinions ALL THE TIME, despite not "knowing" for certain.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is an answer. You're the one coping-out when you refuse to acknowledge that "we simply don't have enough data or experience to know" is a perfectly rational and valid response to the query "should artists and authors have ANY exclusive rights whatsoever." His answer was quite clear: "Yes if that promote the progress, no if it doesn't, and we don't have enough information to form a rational position either way at the moment." That you don't like this answer does not make it a cop out. You want him to take a faith based position on copyright and he has refused.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is an answer. You're the one coping-out when you refuse to acknowledge that "we simply don't have enough data or experience to know" is a perfectly rational and valid response to the query "should artists and authors have ANY exclusive rights whatsoever." His answer was quite clear: "Yes if that promote the progress, no if it doesn't, and we don't have enough information to form a rational position either way at the moment." That you don't like this answer does not make it a cop out. You want him to take a faith based position on copyright and he has refused.

We all have an opinion on the matter despite not "knowing" what the perfect answer is. Why? Because we cannot ever know the perfect answer. Mike cannot explain how we will ever obtain his perfect answer because he knows it's not possible. I want his opinion, given what he knows and thinks, yes or no. I don't want a "yes, if..." I want a yes or no. An opinion. What is his opinion? He doesn't have to prove it. Nobody can prove it. I'm not asking him to define the optimal system. Nobody can define that. What is his best guess? He forms opinions without perfect information ALL THE TIME. This blog proves that. Thousands and thousands of posts based on his opinion. Yet, with this question he pretends like no opinion is possible. Bull. I'm not asking for a "faith based position." I'm asking for his educated best guess. Yes or no.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That question presumes I beat my wife, which I do not. It's another cop-out distraction. Mike clearly has very, very strong opinions about copyright. He's determined that the current system is "broken," despite, as far as I can tell, never admitting that there's any positives to it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

How would Mike be able to "admit" there's positives to a system when, as far as anyone can see, there are none? You take it on faith that there are positives. Well, can you list them? Can you point to works that, without copyright, would never have been created?
And no, simply saying "The creator would never have created unless he can be sure of a financial return" is not the correct answer. Creators can always attempt, like anyone else, to earn a profit on their works. Copyright doesn't suddenly give them the ability, as if no-one can earn a profit on creative works until copyright shows up to save the day.
Copyright is a business model. That is all. A failing business model that tells everyone to close their eyes and pretend that the last one hundred and fifty years of technological progress hasn't happened. It tells us that we don't own our equipment, that we must sacrifice ownership and control, and the very ability to create and publish, all so someone else can attempt to make a buck.
Try working in the 21st century. Try to create works without worrying about having a monopoly over them beforehand. Try engaging with your audience. There's plenty of artists whom I compensate monetarily if I can, but it is not because of copyright.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't see any works there "produced because of copyright". I see a list of works where the copyright is infringed on, yes, but I don't see a single work that owes its existence to copyright law.
You've failed. Again. I asked you to list me even just one work where copyright is the reason it exists. You didn't. You just found a random list of works somewhere and assumed that was the case. Where's the evidence that copyright alone is the reason those works exist?

Oh, and explain to me how someone "pirates" a public domain work? If a work is in the public domain, THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ON IT AND THEREFORE YOU CANNOT PIRATE IT! As for public domain works, I for one have downloaded for free Freddy Astair movies (he was a dancing movie star of the 1920's and 30's)
Besides, with the way your paymasters are going, eventually there'll be nothing in the public domain.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's amazing to me that you deny the incentives provided by copyright. Are they giving those works away for free and allowing anyone to copy them as they please? No. Those works were incentivized by copyright--that's why people are willing to invest time, energy, money, and creativity into creating them. This is so obvious and so basic that it hurts. You're a denialist who apparently wouldn't recognize a benefit from copyright if you were downloading it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"No. Those works were incentivized by copyright--that's why people are willing to invest time, energy, money, and creativity into creating them. This is so obvious and so basic that it hurts. You're a denialist who apparently wouldn't recognize a benefit from copyright if you were downloading it."

If it's so obvious, then give me the evidence! I need evidence before I can change my opinion about something. Again, you just say "Because copyright!" but don't actually say why.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create works. Many people create works so as to sell copies of those works. Where does copyright, the restriction of people other than the author from distributing the work, help in the creation of said work?
Many video game publishers and developers, well, create video games. They sell copies so they can have the financial resources to create more. However, there is not a single video-gamer who says he or she pays the asked for price BECAUSE the developer has a legal monopoly over the work. In fact, mainly its to encourage the developer to create more. Heck, most of the time, the fact there is a legal monopoly that is heavily enforced acts as a disincentive to pay for the work.

So again, provide me evidence that a work exists because of copyright. Show me how a work exists only because its creator has a legal monopoly over its distribution. Don't just say its obvious. Spell it out for me. Pretend I'm an idiot (shouldn't be hard for you to do) and show me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The incentive to sue is amazing isn't it? And so productive. I mean all those artists making money, feeding their families because of lawsuits. All those would-be fans started buying thanks to lawsuits.

The world is wonderful thanks to copyrights.

Wake up buddy. The only reason you've heard of classical music is because it wasn't locked up with copyrights and any orchestra or musician can perform it.

Imagine if music created in the last century wasn't locked up, and others could play it, how culturally rich would we be?

What fucking benefit does a douchebag law like copyright afford society? Seriously, what benefit? Do you think it was copyrights that made Michael Jackson famous or propelled thriller to be highest grossing album of all time? Uh NO!

Like patents, copyright is simply a tool used to stifle innovation (fucking batteries in hybrids and electric vehicles are limited thanks to Chevron owning Panasonic's battery patent) or fight competition.

You go on and on about how copyrights are required but what good have they actually done? Give me one example where copyrights actually did something and not because of the content itself! You can't! But we can give you MANY examples where copyright maximalists have done nothing but try to stifle innovation and kill competition.

You love to write (as does Lowery) if free was so good why are you afraid of copyrights? Who said we're afraid of copyrights? We're afraid of copyright abuse, laws trying to kill competition in the name of copyrights. We're afraid of bullshit copyright claims to silence dissenting views and critiques of works.

And if copyrights were so fucking good why bitch and complain for the last 60 years? Why try to make up bullshit about old boss new boss with out-of-context quotes and anecdotal data (which he's NEVER put up - seriously -where's the charts and tables? Oh, you quote RIAA numbers or RIAA paid for studies - riiiiight)?

It's so obvious that it hurts you to understand, the majority of the population don't care about your copyrights. When laws don't fit, you change the laws.

Copyrights are not natural either. And you would not see much complaining if they were used in original context and with original intent. But they are not, just like patents.

Your IP is mere horseshit and nothing more than control freaks trying to maximize their temporary, short term gains instead of thinking of the future.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The incentive to produce a work may be to make money, but that does not depend on copyright. Authors can make money from their work, while also giving away free electronic copies from site that they pay for.
See Cory Doctorow; and various authors that release audio forms of their work on podiobooks while selling paper copies etc.

Yes, people can make money with their works without relying on copyright. So what? Many people do rely on copyright to make money with their works. I volunteered to help people prepare their tax returns for free recently, but you can also pay a CPA to do your taxes. Are you suggesting that since I did it for free then CPAs shouldn't be allowed to charge? I don't really understand the argument. If Doctorow wants to not rely on copyright (which, I don't believe is accurate since he uses CC licenses which are copyright-based) then good for him. The fact is that authors and artists can choose to take it or leave it. Nothing's stopping artists and authors from creating great works without copyright, but the fact remains that the most mainstream, valuable stuff is the stuff produced by those who do rely on copyright. When the non-copyright-based stuff is the stuff that everyone's sharing on bittorrent, you might have a point. But until then the copyrighted stuff is the stuff that people want predominantly.

If copyright holders got their way, destroying services like Youtube and the like so as to protect their copyrights, then the ability for someone to choose to give their works away for free is greatly lessened.
You constantly say "Let the artist choose whether or not to release a work for free!" but always ignore that in order for the artist to be able to choose to release the work for free, there must be services available that allow him to do just that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Again with this argument. So can we therefore declare by your own admission that any non-Top 10 artist that claims he's getting devastated by piracy is full of shit, then? Because pirates would never download anything else!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"He's determined that the current system is "broken," despite, as far as I can tell, never admitting that there's any positives to it."

Plenty of historians have determined that fascism as a system is broken and have crowed endlessly about its many faults. Yet there is no requirement for them to list what, if any, positives there are.
Hitler did restore the German economy where post World War 1 governments had failed, but of far more importance was the fact he did so through a massive violation of human rights. Do you write to history professors and demand that they balance their lessons with praise of Nazism?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What do you think endlessly posting "Bawk! Bawk! Bawk!" adds to the discussion? You actually think that calling Masnick out on an answer that you refuse to accept for some batshit crazy reason is contributory. You've no right to call other people out on this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is a false dichotomy as the answer can be indeterminate. Nothing dictates that it be yes or no nor is there any requirement nor even a rational reason why any rational individual would give a yes or no when they believe the answer is currently indeterminate. You're like a evangelical christian insisting an atheist must either believe there is a god or believe there is no god when they're perfectly capable of simply lacking belief, holding the possibility that there is a god to be indeterminate as rational thinkers are wont to do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Mike cannot explain how we will ever obtain his perfect answer because he knows it's not possible."

I'd also like to call this out explicitly as being completely false. Everything Mike advocate for here is pursuant to finding the perfect answer. The system is broken, Mike points out when and where it is broken in the hopes it will get fixed, and the more gets fixed the more the goal of finding the perfect answer is advanced. It's impossible to answer absolutely where the best balance will be struck while the system remains broken, however. Could it be no copyrights? Certainly. Could it be some form of copyright after the obvious excesses of the current system have been curtailed? Certainly. The answer is indeterminate at this time and fixing the broken system is step one to determining the answer.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sounds good. Now, can you point me to even one sentence in the thousands of blog posts that Mike has written about copyright where he looks at the positives? For a guy that claims to be on the fence and just so unable to decide, you'd think there'd be one sentence, wouldn't you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That wasn't what was being discussed over the lawsuit.
Is it a fact that many of Viacom's videos are available for anyone to access and view through Youtube? YES
Is it a fact that many of Viacom's videos are there without its permission? YES

However, Blue, here's where your argument fails, because it is here that your eyes glaze over, you start to drool and your brain shorts out. So read VERY CAREFULLY
It is a fact that Viacom uploaded, on purpose, many of its videos to Youtube.
It is a fact that Viacom did so in such a way that Youtube staff, and the general public, would think that the accounts those videos were uploaded to were not owned, operated or managed by Viacom.
It is a fact of the long list of videos Viacom said Youtube should have automagically known were infringing and pulled down without having to be told, that the videos Viacom had uploaded were on this list.
It is a fact that there is no way for Youtube staff or management to know WHICH video(s) are infringing copyright without first being told by the copyright holder.
It is a fact that Viacom is a willing part of an industry that has undermined the process of innocent until proven guilty, with regard to being accused of copyright infringement.

It is NOT a fact that Viacom has suffered "massive harm". Viacom has not shown any evidence of suffering. Viacom has in fact caused massive harm to everyone else, so you and Viacom can fuck off and shut up complaining. We don't care if Viacom has been harmed. They have lost any right to claim victimhood because they have caused massive harm themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And you know this how? Magic elves told you? It's presence alone doesn't tell you that, you have to hear directly from the copyright holder if it was authorized or not because that's the only way one can know.

Thus, the burden of showing that YouTube knew or was aware of the specific infringements of the works in suit cannot be shifted to YouTube to disprove. Congress has determined that the burden of identifying what must be taken down is to be on the copyright owner, a determination which has proven practicable in practice.

This one section makes me wonder if google could stop going further than necessary in trying to appease the big media types.

Re:

Google won't because they have a vested interest in working with these people now. What gives me hope is that a new service can now point to this precedent and say: "Active filtering has never bee a pre-condition for DMCA safe harbors."

Re:

There was no willful blindness and even suggesting otherwise is completely absurd. I too would be fine seeing this go to the Supreme Court, seeing Viacom waste millions of dollars tilting at windmills with bedpans on their collective heads is more entertaining than most of their cable channels anyways.

Re:

Re:

Willful blindness to which SPECIFIC video? You can't just say they knew there was infringement somewhere on the site. That's like telling a bank that one of its accounts is using laundered money. If you don't tell it which account, what exactly are they supposed to do about it?

Re: Re: Re:

The YT founders talk about specific instances in their emails.

Actually, they did not. They did talk about *general* cases of *possible* infringement, but none of specific examples of actual infringement. Even Viacom admits this in their brief, which apparently you did not read.

They'll continue to pursue this because they know there was blatant willful blindness.

If that was true, don't you think one of the three courts who have ruled on this already, would have found it?

Some good sense. Finally.

It seems like we hear about bad Copyright suits a lot more often than we hear about sensible decisions from the court.

I'm glad that "innocent until proven guilty" has held up, here. The safe harbor provision was the one good thing that came out of the DMCA, and if we're going to get beat over the head with legal protections for DRM, I'm glad that safe harbor is (somewhat) holding up here.

And don't get started on Mega... the stuff the government has already released says that Mega was soliciting infringing content. There's no safe harbor for people who solicit or knowingly host infringing content.

I think that the current system is broken and does not promote the progress, as it should do. I think that I don't know what the *proper* solution is, and I don't think anyone does, because we simply don't have enough data or experience to know. We know what doesn't work, but we don't know what might work better. That's why I've always encouraged more exploration and the ability to experiment.

This will upset you, of course, because it's not a hard and fast position of "copyright must be x."

Hmm, well, we seem to be staggering along in the real world, meaning people getting income for their work and some protection from piratage, even without the clear and precise perfect solution that academic Mike is holding out for. -- At best, Mike sez he "dunno", a characteristic answer.

At worst, what Mike means by "more exploration and the ability to experiment", can ONLY be in the way of more and more piracy, as it's certain he's not for more legal protections.

Now, I spent an hour or so reading and analyzing Mike's "position". -- He does not support copyright except maybe theoretical. THIS IS KEY (italics added):

It's not okay because I don't think it's okay. You're asking a moral question. There is no answer to a moral question other than "that's what I believe." I don't think it's right to ignore the wishes of a content creator.

But that, of course, is entirely separate from what that content creator can do to deal with the fact that many (perhaps most) others have a different moral view on the issue.

Arguing over morals is a waste of time, because it doesn't move the discussion forward.

That's why I don't focus on moral questions, but practical questions. You, apparently, prefer not to do that sort of thing. It makes for silly grandstanding, but nothing useful.

Mike refuses to acknowledge the moral basis of copyright. He doesn't care who owns a work (by having paid for and created it), he just wants to grift some money from its value.

Clearly IF Mike took the moral view that one's intellectual creations belong solely to one, then the rest follows: he'd believe as I do. But Mike wants file hosts like Megaupload free to operate without regard to pesky moral questions like who paid to make the movies that it distributes, let alone to return any of the income to those producers. (You can hear him railing: JUST FORGET SUNK OR FIXED COSTS! THEY DON'T MATTER!") I must conclude that Mike favors grifters, then, over producers.

Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

I think that the current system is broken and does not promote the progress, as it should do. I think that I don't know what the *proper* solution is, and I don't think anyone does, because we simply don't have enough data or experience to know. We know what doesn't work, but we don't know what might work better. That's why I've always encouraged more exploration and the ability to experiment.

Hmm, well, we seem to be staggering along in the real world, meaning people getting income for their work and some protection from piratage, even without the clear and precise perfect solution that academic Mike is holding out for. -- At best, Mike sez he "dunno", a characteristic answer.

At worst, what Mike means by "more exploration and the ability to experiment", can ONLY be in the way of more and more piracy, as it's certain he's not for more legal protections.

Well, I can't speak for Mike, but I think you've seriously misinterpreted what he said. As I read it, Mike is saying that the current copyright laws are not fulfilling their purpose, or at least are not doing a good job of it, and should be replaced by some other laws which would do a better job. But he's not sure what those laws should be, specifically, and sees a need to conduct legal and economic experiments with the aim of finding laws that work better than what's on the books now.

Unless you think that our current copyright laws are absolutely perfect in every way, and that not one word, nor letter, nor even punctuation mark should be changed, you'd have to agree that it would be good to have better laws. And the scientific method works pretty well for finding things out and could be applied here. (Indeed, it is often said that the unusual US political and legal systems, with fifty partially autonomous states and a limited federal government allows each state to function as a laboratory, doing roughly its own thing, while both happily copying good ideas from other states, and allowing other states to copy from it, that our more perfect union might ever improve.)

Some rational analysis of copyright has been done, such as the well known paper by Rufus Pollock. Maybe he did a good job and maybe not (the math is over my head), but it can't hurt to have more research done, and then to try things and see how they work. If we make a mistake, we can always go back.

And while again, I can only speak for myself, I'd happily endorse a copyright regime in which protections were greater than what we have now, if it were shown to be more in the public interest. My gut feeling is that less copyright (although not no copyright), in both duration and scope, would be better, but I'd rather have serious analyses to lead the way than rely on instinct. If you've got something, by all means share it. But if you think the law is not totally perfect now, I urge you to stand with Mike (at least, as I understand him) and support experimentation, whichever way it may take us. To do otherwise is to be afraid that the truth may not correspond with your bias, and that's a shitty way to behave.

Mike refuses to acknowledge the moral basis of copyright.

There is no moral basis of copyright. Copyright is utilitarian. It exists because it's useful, and should be tailored to maximize its usefulness. People don't own things in any meaningful way (i.e. where the thing is being contested) unless they can overpower their opponents or can convince their opponents to cede their claim. Merely creating something is no grounds for owning it. (Although I suppose if you we're a gifted orator you could use that as an argument to convince your opponents to cede their claim, but that still wouldn't make it true.)

Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

By "pt kangarooski": "There is no moral basis of copyright. Copyright is utilitarian."

So laboring to produce a work, let's say just a tune, confers NO ownership, eh?

Your soul is dead and you've never created if that's your opinion. I'm pretty sure that NO musician (keeping to just a tune) would agree with you -- they may not agree with me on some aspects and most wish to freely share the creation, but that THEIR choice, you've NO say in it. I'm certain that making something new and unique with one's little spark of life gives a moral claim: it's not only a feeling but an actuality that ONE produced it, NOT society. -- And I'd say your piratey indifference to moral claims is why most musicians seem to have drifted away from Techdirt.

Why do you guys always wish to undermine morality? (See my added post for more.) -- I'll tell you: because if you grant the moral claim to ownership of a creation, then all the piratey assertions fall flat. And you "utilitarians" just want the money, stealing the value after someone else does the labor.

You are just one small step away from claiming that you can own ALL the fruits of someone else's labor. Morality is ALL that separates us from animals. You are a caveman with a computer.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Sure, labouring to produce a work confers ownership, and if that were all that copyright were used for, you'd actually have a point. What about all those precious corporations, wielding your precious copyright about like a machine gun?

No one's undermining morality; what people simply don't understand is you attempting to wield it as a "be all and end all" in argumentation. Your assertion of "morality" always boils down to because "it's against the law" in an infinite loop of a retarded dog chasing its tail. You mix up plagiarism with copyright infringement when you see fit. You take issues affecting thousands, if not millions, and insist that it's an anomaly. You insist you don't like corporations but have never posted scathing responses to the RIAA and MPAA's actions. You claim you have supposed well-meanings - but you've made it clear, multiple times, that you don't read the articles, and you complain regardless of whether there's anything rant-worthy.

You're lower than primordial ooze. You're an insult to any functioning organism. You are walking vomit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

@AC: "Sure, labouring to produce a work confers ownership, and if that were all that copyright were used for, you'd actually have a point."

OKAY! I have a convert! You've stated all the agreement necessary to eventually end up at my views.

As to your ranting: well, you obviously HAVE read me, though for some reason don't believe that I'm anti-corporation. I keep wondering whether you ACs like to goad me into yet again stating that for corporate fat cats and grifters I favor fair trials and jail (I'm being lenient today, it's usually hanging). As to my position on RIAA and MPAA: I'm FORCED by my stated premises and logic -- copyright is a common law right recognizing individual creation and there MUST be some monopoly carved out for it to direct the income to the creators -- to generally agree with them. But I want to tax the hell out of their unearned income, and believe that's an actually DO-ABLE way to deal with MUCH of what you rail against. Focus your efforts not on copyright, which CAN be fine, but against The Rich who get greedy.

Yet more: Geez, when I candidly STATE that I've skimmed an item to find where Mike is wrong, it's taken as some horrible admission. POINT IS: after I find a wrong premise, I'm NOT going barking down the false trail that Mike wants me to! Be a WASTE of time, besides stupid to allow opponents to set the terms of debate. -- And if there's nothing "rant-worthy" it's my duty to complain about that to help Mike improve his product!

Looks like you just simply can't come to grips with Mike being wrong, so take it out on me. -- Rather feeble ad hom, you ankle-biter.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

So you're not only dense, you're also self-centred to a fault.

"Sweat of the brow" entitling you to a copyright claim is something that several people already believe. That's not how the real world works though; your precious corporations often hold the copyright as opposed to the original creators.

You're not forced to anything. Any time the corporations are caught redhanded you dismiss it as some anomaly. You've only started criticising them after months of people calling you out for it, and each time you've painted yourself and them as the victim. Any fool reading the mind-fuck that is you posting can tell this much.

If this is your standard for "convert"s you really need your head look at. You think Ken White posting at Popehat is because you mockingly demanded it so. You're probably the sort of person that would demand the world to bow at your feet if you claimed that you prayed for the Sun to rise.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

there MUST be some monopoly carved out for it to direct the income to the creators

Funny how that monopoly has only ever been carved out after commercial scale copying became possible. Further the publishers who are the main beneficiary of the monopoly have a poor record when it comes to rewarding the creators.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

So laboring to produce a work, let's say just a tune, confers NO ownership, eh?

Not inherently, no.

Let's tweak the hypo a bit, since utilitarianism also undergirds real property law. Suppose you wash ashore on an uninhabited but otherwise pleasant island. If you build a hut to shelter yourself, you could say that you owned it. But since no one else is around, your claim is moot. Property law isn't necessary unless there is something in dispute.

So, an additional person washes ashore. When you meet him on the shore, seeing him still clutching a piece of flotsam, you can proudly point to the hut and say that you own it. At this point, there are really only two options: First, he could claim it for himself, which results in the two of you fighting for it; whoever wins effectively ends up owning the hut. Second, he doesn't contest your claim for whatever reason. Maybe he builds his own hut (the ownership of which hinges on which of the same two options you choose with regard to that hut), maybe you share your hut with him, as a hut-owner is entitled to do.

Let us now imagine that a group of two people wash ashore a little while later. If they take option one, and fight for a hut, they'll win, all else being equal, since they have superior numbers. Your only chance is to find an ally who is willing to fight for your hut. Why would he do so? What's in it for him? The only real answer is an alliance: you'll help him defend his hut, if he helps you defend yours.

And that is basically how property law works. The reason why you can't claim to own the Brooklyn Bridge and start charging people tolls to use it, is because no one will recognize your claim. And if you try to enforce your claim, you will be outnumbered and outgunned. But if you actually did have enough people willing to accept your claim or had enough armed supporters that you could fight off the previous owner and his supporters, you would own it.

Getting back to the song, it works the same way. So long as you don't reveal it to anyone, you have complete control over it. But that control is fairly useless, since you only get to control yourself, really.

If you share the song with someone, you will lose control over it unless you either defeat the other person (and anyone he's shared it with, and anyone those propel have shared it with, etc.), or convince him that it is in his own best interests to accede to your wishes. Get enough people together who will mutually agree to this, and you can call it a law. And the law might even say that the prerequisite for a copyright under that law is to merely create a work. But enforcing that law still boils down to either physical combat or willing agreement.

Your soul is dead and you've never created if that's your opinion.

I'd be the first to admit that I have no musical talent, but as it happens I am an artist, and I made a comfortable living for several years as an artist, before I decided to go back to school and change careers.

And it's not just my opinion. The utilitarian theories of property law and copyright are solidly established. Frankly, this is the sort of ground that you cover on day one of a law school class on either subject, before getting into the more practical material.

I'm pretty sure that NO musician (keeping to just a tune) would agree with you

I couldn't say; I don't think I've ever discussed the subject with a musician. And while it might very well be an interesting conversation, and I'll try to remember to bring it up if the opportunity occurs, I don't see how their opinion would be controlling on the matter. I mean, biologists don't ask chimps what the chimps think of evolution.

they may not agree with me on some aspects and most wish to freely share the creation, but that THEIR choice, you've NO say in it.

I agree that the choice of whether or not to create a work is up to the author, and of whether or not to share that work with another person is also up to the author. But once you get beyond that point, and the author has willingly created a work and has willingly shared it with someone else, it's as I described above: the author's rights extend only do far as he can manage on his own, or as far as other people are willing to give him.

If a songwriter wrote a song and the entire rest of the world decided to share it amongst themselves without his permission, the songwriter would simply be up shit creek. He'd have no real recourse at all. Merely creating a work isn't enough; you have to get other people to respect your claims, and you're likely to have to get at least some of them to have to do so of their own free will, with their own interests at heart.

I'm certain that making something new and unique with one's little spark of life gives a moral claim: it's not only a feeling but an actuality that ONE produced it, NOT society

I never said that society produced anything. You're still looking at the issue through the lens of "if producer, therefore owner," which I have explained to be wrong. I have no problem with the idea of an auteur to whom a work owes its existence (though I don't know that it's always true, either). I'm just saying that in practical terms, in this world that we live in, might makes law. It's not pretty, and it's not nice, but it's the way of things.

And I'd say your piratey indifference to moral claims is why most musicians seem to have drifted away from Techdirt.

Why do you accuse me of piracy? I have a very different agenda: legalization. (At least so long as all I have to guide me is my gut feeling, as discussed earlier in the thread)

Anyway, I have no idea whether musicians are, or were here. I'm actually a latecomer -- I only found out about this place last year. (I'm sure I had heard of it, but I never got around to coming to the site.)

Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

>>> So laboring to produce a work, let's say just a tune, confers NO ownership, eh?

Not inherently, no.

Let's tweak the hypo a bit, since utilitarianism also undergirds real property law. Suppose you wash ashore on an uninhabited but otherwise pleasant island. If you build a hut to shelter yourself, you could say that you owned it. But since no one else is around, your claim is moot. Property law isn't necessary unless there is something in dispute.
----------

Say, you ARE a caveman. Let's start in the modern 21st century, not a desert island. Surely you don't claim that anyone with a stick can knock you on the head and then claim all your goods? -- The value of living among others is that those others will support one's NATURAL RIGHTS, just as you must support theirs, so you can all be more or less free from physical force.

No, MIGHT does NOT make law. Not in anything resembling civilization. If you wish to live like that, then -- oh, I already wrote that you're a literal caveman. But I'll repeat that with your notions taken just one short step further then YOU have no right to ANY fruits of your labor. And by golly, you're likely to be on the wrong end of that soon: in Cyprus, banksters just simply seized bank balances. And in Greece, the banksters are inflicting austerity, with great glee.

You meander through irrelevant primitive conditions so I'll skip: the FACT of current copyright law is that creating a song automatically confers rights to it. That's in accord with common law and my notions.

I'll let the pirate dig stand after your "might makes law" statement supports it more than figuratively. I think you're just searching for an argument to not admit mine. -- If your writing here is genuine, then when hit over the head, you wouldn't call for the police to uphold your rights. That's not utilitarian, it's loony.

Copyright is more complex, and IF limited, would be fine. But what Mike wishes is to do away with it. He can't actually bring himself to express an opinion, after 15 years, but it's clear that he favors grifters over those who actually produced content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

The value of living among others is that those others will support one's NATURAL RIGHTS

Copyright is not a natural right.

The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, [...] but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served [...] by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

The fact that a bunch of politicians say something doesn't make it true.

The Constitution granted these exact politicians the exclusive right to create copyright laws, so in this case, it is true if they say it. (Assuming they're representing the will of the general public, as they should.)

But they're not the only ones to have said it:

The central plank of the 1710 Act was then, and remains, a cultural quid pro quo. Parliament, to encourage "learned Men to compose and write useful Books", provided a guaranteed, if finite, right to print and reprint those works so composed. The legislators were not concerned with the recognition of any pre-existing authorial right...

- Ronan Deazley, "Commentary on the Statute of Anne 1710"

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. [...]

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not.

- Thomas Jefferson

That congress, in passing the act of 1790, did not legislate in reference to existing rights, appears clear...

- Wheaton v. Peters

I could dig up more, if you want. But the upshot is pretty clear: copyright simply is not a natural right. It is a statutory right, one that does not exist unless Congress declares it so.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Intellectual property is not a natural right. When was the last time you saw one wolf prohibiting other wolves from using his style of stalking? Or a bee stinging another bee to death for doing the same dance moves?

The only natural rights are the right to take whatever you're strong enough to take and the right to fight to the death to defend what's yours.

Every other "right" is a creation of the sorts of agreements you called kangarooski a caveman over and are as artificial as the tax code.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Is an unenforced law a law? Well, no not really. It's just words on a piece of paper no one pays any mind. So the question then becomes what does 'enforced' mean in regards to a law? Well, law enforcement is, in the simplest expression, the application of might. So there we have it, in simple and straightforward logic, might absolutely makes law. Without might there is no recourse when someone rejects voluntary participation.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Does sweet of the brow confers irrevocable, unlimited ownership of anything in this world?

Copycrap is just that a way to cheat natural laws.

What rights have a dead person over any works?
What utility serves the public good to grant long, wide(in scope) monopolies to any idiot on the face of the earth?

What people expect is for you to work and get paid once not go after them time after time and then again some more begging for more money, calling them thieves, trying to take away things from them least of which is the right to own what they bought and paid for.

Google made the "Google Glass" one of the terms of service is that you can't lend it or resell it to anybody else or they can disable it.

How about you buy a car with the same restrictions, or a house, how about if you make any money from anything produce by somebody else you have to pay them, would you pay Google for using their hardware and software?

I may be weak and can't openly oppose any of this crap, but I can safely ignore it, in my own little piece in this earth, that is a place where copyrights have no value and are immoral.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Copytards should have no rights after they die, copytards should have no more rights than others have meaning they shouldn't be able to go after others to keep whining about money after they got paid once, copytards shouldn't have the right to continue to own anything they sold, copytards shouldn't have the right to dictate how things should be use be use or when or where.
Copycrap is a fraking granted monopoly that distorts reality, undermines ownership, decreases social value, is a threat to core foundations of democracy(i.e. right to own stuff, free speech, privacy, free trade, etc.).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

LMAO! Karl is one of the more confused--and obstinate--Techdirt Faithful. Mike has not stated an opinion, yes or no, as to whether artists and authors should have ANY exclusive rights. Mike has not stated an opinion, yes or no, on whether he thinks it's immoral to pirate. He will not answer those questions with a direct answer. I know that he doesn't "know." I know that he can't prove it. I know that his answer will not give us the optimal regime. Nobody knows. Nobody can prove it. Nobody can tell us what's optimal. But everyone has an opinion, Mike most especially. What is his opinion? Yes or no?

I'm going to keep asking and asking and asking and asking until he answers. It took me two years to get him to explain why he thinks "piracy is not OK." It turns out that the ONLY reason is that its contra to the wishes of rightholders. That's like saying the only thing wrong with rape is that the girl doesn't like it. It's not hard to infer from that statement, plus the thousands of posts that are critical and disparaging of copyright, that he doesn't think that there should be any exclusive rights. Why won't he just admit it? How many years is it going to take to get an honest answer? I'm not going anywhere.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Small wonder that average_joe comes to the defence of out_of_the_blue. As long as it's against Masnick you get more excitement than what your wife can probably offer you. That's why you get a kick out of posting naughty things on her laptop.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

I almost never even read OOTB's posts, so I don't even know what you're talking about. You're only able to attack me personally. I'm sorry you can add to the discussion on the merits. Mike likes 'em dumb, that's for sure. You're right at home here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Also, I love the way you claim Mike "has not stated an opinion" on whether it's immoral to pirate... yet, in the same post, discusses the opinion Mike stated for why it's immoral to pirate. (Incidentally, Mike said "artists," not "rightsholders" - since Mike, unlike you, is pro-artist.)

Bonus points for an appeal to emotion, by equating rape - a physical violation, done through violence - with copyright infringement, which is neither a physical violation nor a violent act.

Of course, portraying your "enemies" as thuggish, subhuman rapists is a classic propaganda technique, so I'm not at all surprised you're using it.

Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Well, I can't speak for Mike, but I think you've seriously misinterpreted what he said. As I read it, Mike is saying that the current copyright laws are not fulfilling their purpose, or at least are not doing a good job of it, and should be replaced by some other laws which would do a better job. But he's not sure what those laws should be, specifically, and sees a need to conduct legal and economic experiments with the aim of finding laws that work better than what's on the books now.

Clearly the current system does bring us wonderful works that are highly valuable. Look at TV, Netflix, Hulu, Redbox, HBO Go, Spotify, iTunes, etc. All of those services that people pay good money for are based on the copyright model. How many public domain works are there on those services? Hardly any.

Yet Mike ONLY focuses on the negatives. He'll write article after article about anyone who could possibly be described as filing a bogus DMCA takedown notice, but then he never writes about the millions and millions of notices that are perfectly legitimate and represent a pirate getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Where is the balance? What in the world makes you think that Mike's determination that copyright isn't working are based on any sort of balanced view?

At the end of the day, though, Mike is pretending like he can't possibly have an opinion on whether we should have any copyright because he doesn't know what the optimal system would be. That's a cop-out. Nobody knows. Nobody will ever know. Mike can't tell us how he would obtain this information because he knows that the information is unobtainable. But you're a smart guy and I know that you know that Mike does indeed have an opinion. He won't say what that opinion is, but you and I both know what that opinion is. He doesn't think there should be any copyright. He can't prove it or guarantee it, because it's an opinion. He has lots and lots of opinions about copyright that he gives us everyday. So when he pretends like he just can't possibly have on opinion on this, we know he's lying.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Because when the law works as intended, it's nothing to crow about. However, when the law fails, when the act of investigating, catching and sentencing those who break a certain law outright causes far more harm, whether direct or indirect than the act of law-breaking itself, that's when people should be up in arms.
Imagine if there had been smoking gun evidence, an email from a Youtube exec saying "Watch this obviously copyrighted video here, which we won't delete" and thus, courts ordered Youtube shut down as a result. Here, the act of protecting someone's copyright has shut down one of the most massively used tools for the purposes of free expression. A tool that has helped topple dictatorial regimes (see Arab Spring) and helps the average citizen provide evidence of police misconduct. I want an answer from you, yes or no, is it moral and ethical to protect copyright through the destruction of the average person's ability to make free speech on the internet.
After all, thanks to Six Strikes, the average person just needs to be accused six times and their ability to make free speech is restricted, if not cut off entirely.
THAT is why I am against copyright. The cost of protecting copyright is far too high.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Clearly the current system does bring us wonderful works that are highly valuable.

First off, that's the wrong metric. Copyright is concerned with the quantity of works produced, not the quality. After all, quality is subjective, and we really don't want to have a system of government subsidies in the form of temporary, limited monopolies, subject to some bureaucrat's idea of artistic merit. Part of the genius of copyright is that it leaves so much to the market to decide. It can produce odd results as fashions change (there are a lot of high quality operas, but opera is generally no longer popular enough to support itself financially) but it's pretty good. But if the quantity of works is emphasized, well, there will be more good works produced just as there are more crappy ones. Sturgeon's law applies: 90% of everything is crap, so getting more good works means putting up with a proportionate increase in crappy ones.

Second, that's not even the only metric. Copyright is meant to not only maximize the number of works created and published, which, but for copyright, would not have been created and published; it is also meant to minimize the limits on the freedom of the public with regard to those works, both in duration and in scope. So if, for example, a reform to copyright law such as repealing the CTEA had no change on the number of works created and published, it would be a good law because it would have reduced the duration of copyright. In fact, given the varying rate of public benefit in quantity that comes from trade offs from freedom (going from 0 years of copyright to 1 year has substantial effect; going from 100 years to 101 years has very little), even if a reform had a negative effect on the number of works created and published, it could still be a net gain for the public if the increase in freedom more than made up for it.

So while there are certainly some successes under the current model, unless you think the current copyright law is, in every regard, absolutely perfect, it must be capable of being improved. Reformers such as myself want to improve it because we aren't satisfied with how well it performs now. We think it can do even better, and we seem to be looking at a bigger picture than you.

Yet Mike ONLY focuses on the negatives. He'll write article after article about anyone who could possibly be described as filing a bogus DMCA takedown notice, but then he never writes about the millions and millions of notices that are perfectly legitimate and represent a pirate getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Where is the balance? What in the world makes you think that Mike's determination that copyright isn't working are based on any sort of balanced view?

Well, remember that a take down notice is not a slap on the wrist for a pirate; pirates are not shielded from liability by the DMCA; only service providers are. A copyright holder is entirely free to both serve a take down notice and sue the pirate at issue as per normal. If copyright holders are wimping out on their follow through, they've no one to blame but themselves.

And in any case, I honestly don't care what Mike thinks about copyright. In fact, the only people who seem to are a couple of trolls who complain about it, as if what he thinks is absolutely crucial. Still, though, the comments from earlier in the thread sounded to me like someone who was interested in copyright reform based upon careful study conducted along scientific principles. Maybe I'm just projecting, since that's what I'm interested in.

tl;dr -- What Mike thinks, and how open he is about it, is pretty clearly irrelevant to everyone here who isn't already trying to use it as a line of attack against him. It isn't working, but it is annoying to see trolls who are so damn unimaginative that they just keep posting the same post -- sometimes, literally the same post -- every time. If you can't go away, at least try something else. Take a little pride in your work, and be creative instead of phoning it in. Damn!

Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Copyright is concerned with the quantity of works produced, not the quality.

I would like to see something to back this up. I would argue that promoting the sciences and arts requires a certain level of quality. There is a fundamental assumption built in to the concept of monetizing artwork: if your work is crap, nobody is going to pay money for it.

I could spam out a hundred songs a day if I wanted to, but would those be worth buying?

Copyright isn't there just to get people to create endless tons of birdcage liners. Its goal is to promote culture, not just meaningless commerce.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

I would like to see something to back this up. I would argue that promoting the sciences and arts requires a certain level of quality. There is a fundamental assumption built in to the concept of monetizing artwork: if your work is crap, nobody is going to pay money for it.

I could spam out a hundred songs a day if I wanted to, but would those be worth buying?

Copyrights are granted without regard to whether a work is of quality or is crap, and without regard to whether you can make money from exploiting the copyrights of works or not. If you write a hundred bad songs in a day, they're all copyrightable so far as the law is concerned.

And what would the alternative be? Who would be the arbiter of cultural quality that decides whether a work is good enough to merit a copyright? You? You want to review every single one in the careful and thoughtful fashion that would be required, and then give it a stamp of approval or not?

Copyright is meant to promote culture without making cultural judgments. Even if people produce a lot of crap, there will be good works as well. And some of the crap may turn out to be worthwhile. After all, in Shakespeare's day, theater was disreputable, cheap entertainment, and not culturally important. It was thought to be crap by the people in power. Now it's high culture. Similar things have happened with movies, popular music, novels, etc.

And it's not as though there is any harm done by having a surplus of bad works; they'll just be ignored, the way that bad works are ignored now.

Plus, there's a partial solution to what you may perceive to be a problem -- the overgranting of copyrights. Just require formalities: for published works, at least, copyrights must be applied for in a timely fashion, with a simple form, token fee, and a deposit and disclosure, then renewed periodically. Then it's up to the author to decide whether his own work is valuable enough to merit stepping over the tiny hurdle needed to get a copyright and keep it, or whether it's too insignificant and may as well be in the public domain sooner than later.

But really, copyright is no place for third parties to make cultural decisions. Let authors do what they want, and let their audiences choose what to enjoy, and it will all work out fine. It's not a problem to have a surfeit of works.

Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

In fact, the only people who seem to are a couple of trolls who complain about it, as if what he thinks is absolutely crucial.

Actually, the reason these trolls care about what Mike thinks, is because people actually listen to Mike, and nobody listens to the trolls.

They just can't accept the fact that people listen to Mike because he actually has sane and reasonable things to say, and nobody listens to the trolls because they have nothing. So, like anyone who can't attack the argument, they attack the speaker instead.

Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Look more closely at this: "what that content creator can do to deal with the fact that many (perhaps most) others have a different moral view on the issue." -- Mike is thereby a collectivist not an individualist, a democrat not a republican, and quite literally a pirate not a libertarian; he states that numbers determine rights, so a majority, a gang, can just TAKE whatever individuals produce. Above all Mike doesn't recognize that copyright stems from a worker's common law right to the fruits of his labor. -- Of course Society is necessary for market, but secondary. -- Copyright is a compromise so that intellectual workers can exclusively peddle products for a limited time. -- Of course in mass markets where millions can be gotten for brief one-time efforts, greed sets in, and THAT is what I wish to limit, but Mike and fanboys are just rabid pirates who want to do away entirely with copyright, TAKE whatever content they can without allowing the creators ANY exclusive ownership, so we never get to reasonable debate.

In passing, note that Mike internalizes morality: 'There is no answer to a moral question other than "that's what I believe."' -- Whew. If the moral question is whether it's okay to steal, then all that matters is what he thinks, right? -- Not recognizing that morality applies to dealings with others is sociopathy. -- Oh, sure, he'll "clarify" when it's pointed out, but it's clear that Mike is a law unto himself.

The collectivist/egotist theme runs all through Mike's writing (so obvious that I haven't pointed it up, but one can't under-estimate the fanboys): right on the About Techdirt, page, it's explicitly a group effort -- but only ONE collects the rewards.

By the way, don't think I'm wasting my time on an idle thread: I'm editing the old-fashioned way, off-line, and through magic of copy/paste you'll see this again.

Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

"Not recognizing that morality applies to dealings with others is sociopathy."

For once, blue, you're actually right. The RIAA failed to recognise that morality applied to dealings with their consumers, and insisted on making every step of being legitimate as uselessly painful and restricted as they possibly could. Eventually the world called them out on their bullshit and they effectively damaged the industry more than piracy ever could.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

@ AC:

>>> "Not recognizing that morality applies to dealings with others is sociopathy."

For once, blue, you're actually right. The RIAA failed to recognise that morality applied to dealings with their consumers, and insisted on making every step of being legitimate as uselessly painful and restricted as they possibly could. Eventually the world called them out on their bullshit and they effectively damaged the industry more than piracy ever could.

----------------

Your implicit notion is that the RIAA and Mike can't BOTH be wrong. But BOTH can be, and Mike definitely IS wrong where I state. -- As for me calling the RIAA wrong, well, you're too general here, so I'll just yet again say that fat cats and other grifters off talent should mostly be given a fair trial for their crimes and then tossed into jail. But what needs changed is the society in which grifting is not only allowed but increasingly promoted. Unearned income should be TAXED away as it used to be; it's immoral, unfair, and ruinous of society.

Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Once again little boy blue you've failed to understand what is being said. The point being made is that the only people who you will convince with a moral argument is people who already agree with your moral argument. It's not at all the same thing as saying the only morality that matters is 'what he thinks' which is, ironically, the position you are taking.

Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

> the moral basis of copyright.

Can you elaborate a bit on that? I mean, can you point me towards some "Idiot's Guide to the Moral Basis of Copyright"?

I'd like to read up on just such a topic, actually, because I'm not entirely sure how the usual moral principles apply to things like independent invention. And independent invention happens all the time. Look at the history of Knuth-Morris-Pratt string matching algorithm, for example. Light bulbs, the telegraph, the telephone, and maybe even the airplane have the same sort of checkered "ownership" problems. So, I'd really like to read up on this idea.

Learn by doing. Sit down and begin writing a novel: by the end of it you'll understand the moral basis that copyright is to recognize WHO spent those hours on the WORK of it. -- Doesn't even matter if you produce crap: if you actually WORK at making something that just YOU enjoy, you WILL understand.

But I'm not able to help either dogs or idiots: I presume some degree of innate grasp of self-evident truths, ability to deal with abstracts, and genuine desire to learn, besides without the apparent attempt at sarcasm you make.

Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

The USA has explicitly rejected a "sweat of the brow" argument for copyright. So I'm not sure what to make of your argument at first.

And I have to beg to differ about the sarcasm: none was attempted or meant. I can't help it if you read stuff into what I write, but I meant nothing other than what I wrote. I'm still unsure of how a "moral basis of copyright" would play, and I'd like to read more. A reference to a Techdirt comment really doesn't count that much.

Surely somebody has made a case for a moral basis for copyright. And again, I'd like to see how independent invention is accounted for in such a basis.

Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

@ AC: "The USA has explicitly rejected a "sweat of the brow" argument for copyright. So I'm not sure what to make of your argument at first."

Okay, but "the USA" has in the past upheld slavery in the courts: I separate myself from such.

2nd, I wasn't SURE you intended sarcasm, but that' the way to bet here.

Now, thanks for opportunity to re-paste this! It's my own totally original writing though you're free to take it and use as wish. I don't follow this fanatically, just sat down and answered your question to myself (guess I should state that "I hold these truths to be self-evident", otherwise it's "turtles all the way down", you can't "prove" anything):

Fundamentals of Rational Copyright

) Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work.

) Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.

) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It's specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.

) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it's still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)

) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent copiers and the general public from copying works (during the limited time). The societal agreement is that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.

) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.

) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so.

) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.

) Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical.

) Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.

) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators.

) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.

) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.

) When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don't throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may play "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.)

) Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can't guarantee income". -- Misleading. The older body of copyright (beginning in the US Constitution) was to guarantee creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt.

) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

I remember seeing this EXACT SAME COMMENT before on other articles, right down to the ) before each point (why do you use a bracket to separate your points? Most people use a star * or number them 1), 2), 3), etc)

Each and every point of yours was debunked, especially
"Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical. "

If that were true, then there'd be no such thing as fair use parody - it would be illegal, immoral and unethical for me to watch Yugioh The Abridged Series since I'm seeing the original video track spliced and edited (in any way, for free) and LittleKuriboh making money from ads over his videos on Youtube and from selling merchandise like T-shirts and charging for appearances at various conventions.
Imagine how dull the world would be if the insane points you espouse were true, and nobody used works at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

Well, there's three main schools of thought AFAIK:

There is the work of John Locke, as applied to copyright. Basically Locke felt that the application of labor to goods or land entitled the laborer to some rights in it. (Although IIRC, short of absolute control; he did not like waste, and felt that if the owner wasn't going to use something that would spoil otherwise, he shouldn't be able to prevent other people from using it) I am not a big fan of this, and Locke's influence is rather limited.

The other thing would be the idea that a creative work is an extension of the suthor's own mind and personality, and thus should be controlled as absolutely by him as those other things should be. This is all very big in Europe. It's bullshit, though, as it cannot be reconciled with freedom of speech.

And then there is utilitarianism, which is what American copyright law is based on. Which is basically that copyright law should be practical, and provide more benefits to society than the harm that it causes. There's no morality in this one of course. Even today, this is the basis of our copyright law. And while that might not be immediately apparent, that's mainly because the law is corrupt and generally doing a bad job. It is my hope that it will be reformed so as to better do its job.

Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?

I'd like to read up on just such a topic, actually, because I'm not entirely sure how the usual moral principles apply to things like independent invention.

From what I've learned, ethics are entirely based on the possibility of harm to other people. That harm can be physical, emotional, psychological, or financial. If an act does not harm another person, it is ethical by default. When an act harms another person, the ethics of that act are determined by things like a person's knowledge of the consequences of his actions, acting in defense of another, or whether the harm is the result of fair competition.

The difference between morality and ethics is that ethics are often explicitly defined within a profession, whereas the term "morality" adds personal opinion, religious views, and upbringing.

So how do you apply ethics to independent invention?

Case 1:
I write a fictional novel about an interesting historical event. Another person happens to write a similar novel over the same time span, and we both publish around the same time. There was no copying, but some of our dialog is nearly identical, since we both took information from the same historical sources.

Is it ethical that we both publish our books? Is either of us harmed by the others' publication? The potential harm would be due to loss of sales if our books compete in the same genre. But our society values competition, and since no copying took place, there were no unethical acts that lead up to the publication of both books.

Case 2:

Let's say that I develop a new battery system that finally gives us the ability to drive an electric car for 600 miles in between charges, and you can charge the battery in 10 minutes without danger of it exploding.

I go to patent it, only to find out that 5 years ago,someone else patented the exact same system but never produced it. So there's no way I could possibly have known about or copied his invention.

Legally, the other guy can actually prevent me from selling or using my invention, even though I discovered and implemented the device completely on my own.

But the ethics question is this: how is this second case different than the first case?

OOTB

Blue,

Please shut the fuck up. You are doing nothing now but raving like a lunatic, pulling shit out of your ass ("moral component of copyright" - there is no such thing codified in either the constitution or the law. Point it out to us, or shut the fuck up about this topic as you obviously are *projecting* what you WANT onto the discussion and are not actually in touch with the reality of the situation.) making strawman arguments, selectively applying what people say, and then ending nearly EVERY damn comment with some kind of personal attack on someone.

Please, you are an embarrassment, and your foaming-at-the-mouth name-calling is not winning anyone over to your views. You are distracting everyone else from having a meaningful discussion of the problems all creative people face just so you can get your "ME!" time in. If you feel that strongly about these topics, stop being a failed creator, and go make your own site. You are not useful to the discussion here any longer.

Re: OOTB

Re: OOTB

@ "RD": "Please shut the fuck up."

Oh, I don't want YOU to shut up! Keep writing vulgarly as you are: it's the TRUE nature of Techdirt. Keep showing the level of "discussion" here by ad hom rants. This is NOT a forum for discussion, it's a club for pirates who try to run everyone else out. Should anyone reasonable blunder into here, your comments explain my comparatively mild ad hom.

Listen, sonny. Just write what you wish to on the topic, IF you've got anything at all relevant. And allow me to post without constant sheerly ad hom attacks.

Re: Re: OOTB

Hey, jabber jaws, you want vulgar? I likes reading vulgarities. To me add a few tip bites and you'd be much more interesting to read and would give some merit to the time wasted. And it is, alas, a forum. And, if you're going to fuck-all off on everyone here with your accusations of piracy... fuck piracy, it's fucking infringement, bitch and, right now, if you manage more than your own copyrights on what you, yourself, have created then you're probably fucking up the program. You fucking cunts want to turn shit off on a dime and you do what for me again? Make shit? Riight. Fuck. Off.

You want nature? Go fuck a cricket. Add a hum to your homs and maybe I'll let you get away with accusing me of something like strangling the reptilian cat you're hiding in your ass with a guitar string, you know, something with an actual fucking basis in reality.

I should probably close this box and skip submit but, you know, like a moth to a flame, burnt again.

Re: Re: Re: OOTB

Re: Re: OOTB

Sorry can't do that, you are a prick little blue and deserve all the pain and name calling others dishes out to you.

Specially since you try to defend the most immoral set of rights in human history, nobody is going to agree with you that granting monopolies is good you certainly would be screaming how bad Google is for making their Google-Glass non-sellable and non-lending wouldn't you?

Of course you would because Google is the devil, they produced a product and now are trying to control it beyond the sales terms undermining your own rights to own something, what if this catches on? cars that have a lot of restrictions, what about the moral rights of car manufacturers? LoL
See how dumb your arguments are?

Re: Re: OOTB

Okay, Blue, what about the time I showed photographic evidence that I pay good hard money for my content and afterward, you still ran around calling me a thief? What is that, if not an ad-hom attack? Pot, meet kettle.

Reply to this, madman. Obviously, I don't pay for every bit of content I consume (main reason being, that I consume far more content than I could ever hope to pay for, unless I had an income with six or seven digits).
You want people to pay to consume copyrighted works (when they can). How are you encouraging them in that behaviour? You want me to pay for content. All right - I pay when two conditions are met
1) I'm able to (my budget for entertainment must come after I've paid for little things like food, rent, electricity, etc)
2) The quality is good i.e. bang for my buck.

Your actions DIRECTLY DIS ENCOURAGE me from paying for copyright. Even after showing photographic evidence that I play by the rules and fork over money that I earned through hard work, you still called me a dirty thief and a criminal. So...why should I bother? If you're going to consider me a thief anyway, wouldn't it then be in my best interests to skip the payment part altogether? After all, I'm just a thief. I might as well live up to the name if I'm going to be brushed as one, whether or not I deserve to be. I'd save a ton of money.

So, nutcase, your own actions undermine your stated goal, of getting us to pay for content.

Re: Re: OOTB

You want vulgar?

Alright, you malodious miscreant. Techdirt’s commenters and writers have had just about enough of your wanton tomfoolery. You’ve proven yourself a dangerous distraction to lively and intelligent discussion on these and other comment sections.

Your arguments, specious and ill-formed as they stand right now, do nothing to advance the discussion of copyright; if anything, you do nothing more than heap a pile of equine excrement upon discussions every time you open your maw and bray in the vein of a pungent jackass.

You have never once brought an intelligent, sane, well-thought-out point to any discussion into which you’ve stepped into and thoroughly sullied with your vileness. Every comment you make does more to sully your own name and what little reputation a bridge-troll such as yourself has than tarnish the reputations of Michael Masnick and his band of scribes.

Nothing about what you do brings you any real accomplishment, and for that alone, you deserve no empathy or respect. When you can come to the table with a coherent argument that relies less on personal attacks and more on logic, you can speak again — but until that day arrives, you’d serve your cause better by keeping your mouth closed and letting your idiocy manifest itself only within your wretched mind.

Re: Re: OOTB

You're the "sonny" here pal, trust me, I got you by a couple of DECADES, at least. I have FAR more experience and history than you in all these matters.

Secondly, on staying on topic: YOU FIRST. Or, would you like me to pull out the dozens or so threads where you spout off random crap that has NOTHING to do with the topic you are posting in? Because, you know, you do that. A lot.

Re: OOTB

Exactly, him and his ilk prevent us from actually having meaningful discussions on the future of copyright, because they are a high rate of noise. It's almost as if they don't want that discussion.

Whenever we offer suggestions, the shills, the trolls and the ad hominem spouting Anonymous Cowards and Blue come out of the woodwork explaining why it won't work, because it only works in that one instance.

Sure, wiseguys, but you can only reach the future by making single steps.
And not every solution will work for everyone else.
Which is what THEIR industry has shown over the years.

A few big major names, and the rest languishes in obscurity.

And despite their constant moaning and bitching on this forum about copyright (or how Mike refuses to take a stand, which is abjectly false), the artists that actually produce quality content are actually gaining fandom/money/fame/influence, the industries are growing, it's just the middlemen that are feeling the big hurt.

And that's what these copywrong-trolls fear the most. Suddenly they have to work harder to get recognized, because they have to do it themselves. Instead of sitting back and waiting for that cheque to come in the mail.

Re: Re: OOTB

Exactly, him and his ilk prevent us from actually having meaningful discussions on the future of copyright, because they are a high rate of noise.

You're wrong: they do not prevent anyone from meaningful discussion. Those who reply to him do. No one is forced to reply to their idiotic comments, they know that they're trolls and still keep bashing them..

It's almost as if they don't want that discussion.

That's true. The most trolling activity happens on copyright sensitive topics, which could imply that they're professional shills.
Or not, and they're just bored idiots with too much free time at hand.

Re: OOTB

Re: OOTB

You seem to be under the impression that OOTB and his tribe (trolls live in tribal society) are trying to make a meaningful argument or want to win anyone over to their cause. They don't. They just want to spark responses, and doing quite successfully.

We should stick this image to their "accounts" like a sign in front of a cage in a zoo.

'the burden of proof is on the service provider to show a lack of knowledge of infringement, is crazy'

i must admit that i am surprised at this being accepted, given that the exact opposite happens when individuals are accused of file sharing and committing 'piracy'. the entertainment industries, of which Viacom surely is a part, have managed to change the law so that individuals can be charged on accusation and the accused has to prove innocence, which is almost impossible and well the industries know. this is why they have got congress to agree that the accused is now guilty unless able to prove innocence. as individuals we must surely know this is wrong but it hasn't stopped it from becoming the accepted norm in copyright cases, so the 'is crazy' comment should apply here too. explanation as to why it doesn't? easy! no one in positions of power in the governments or the courts can do enough to keep propping up a dying industry. if it stops, the backhanders stop as well! how could these well paid, people representatives exist without them contributing to the campaign funds, the lobbying and the coffee breaks?